Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Please no more nerfs


Roleplaying Guild General Discussion

551 to 600 of 708 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
If Paizo offered a bunch of new Campaign Setting material, and slowed down the new rules introductions (and thus the power creep, etc), I'd happily spend as much (or more) money on the campaign setting material as I do on hardcover rulebooks.

Same here. I canceled my Campaign and Player Companion subscriptions because many are not relevant to me. And if one does become relevant, I'll purchase that particular book.

I don't need more rules bloat. And that is what those lines have become largely.

Silver Crusade ***** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Thomas Hutchins wrote:


Perhaps the answer is spending less work getting ready for the game. Only need to know the basics to have a guy read block text and die in 1 round.

That WAS true for me before the explosion of new material. Its not true for the new material (I don't own Occult Adventures and basically have no interest in it. And Paizo quite deliberately made the material in that book different from anything else and therefore considerably harder to learn). In one scenario I had to spend considerable time to learn what a mesmerist does, fight the fact that the map invalidated the BBEGs tactics, and then watch as the group ROTFL stomped the encounter into the ground.

As to power creep, its a real thing. Affects different classes and characters to a different extent, of course, but play enough Core and you'll quickly agree that even Wizards, Clerics and Druids are significantly weaker and less flexible in Core.

**

Paul Jackson wrote:
Thomas Hutchins wrote:


Perhaps the answer is spending less work getting ready for the game. Only need to know the basics to have a guy read block text and die in 1 round.

That WAS true for me before the explosion of new material. Its not true for the new material (I don't own Occult Adventures and basically have no interest in it. And Paizo quite deliberately made the material in that book different from anything else and therefore considerably harder to learn). In one scenario I had to spend considerable time to learn what a mesmerist does, fight the fact that the map invalidated the BBEGs tactics, and then watch as the group ROTFL stomped the encounter into the ground.

You had trouble with the not a bard, not a wizard, and really its just a sorcerer with the name scratched off classes? I'll give you the kineticist and medium but only one of those showed up on a consistent basis.

EDIT:
Not that I don't like those classes but jeez they really aren't that different from their core counterparts.

****

BigNorseWolf wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
If Paizo offered a bunch of new Campaign Setting material, and slowed down the new rules introductions (and thus the power creep, etc), I'd happily spend as much (or more) money on the campaign setting material as I do on hardcover rulebooks.
I don't know if most of the community shares that sentiment.

I personally do, but I'm pretty sure GM Lamplighter and I are in the minority. I think mechanics sell...I just don't think they're particularly good for the long-term health of a campaign (or game, for that matter). I suppose one could argue that what is good for sales is good for the game...it really depends on what you mean by "good for the game." :P

Shadow Lodge ***** RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8 aka WalterGM

What I do for any of those new rules I am less familiar with is have the player walk me through how it works. It's their character, with their abilities. They should know how it operates. They also should be able to provide me the various rules their characters use.

If it's for a scenario, typically they've done well including descriptions of specific abilities enemies use, and it becomes akin to looking up a spell I'm unfamiliar with. Nothing I don't already do when prepping a game.

I also really appreciate having the maps and NPC statblocks included at the back (appendix style) in the scenario. It makes referencing easy, and even allows non-GMs to draw maps for upcoming games, should they so choose: which we did last night!

Shadow Lodge ***** RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8 aka WalterGM

bugleyman wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
If Paizo offered a bunch of new Campaign Setting material, and slowed down the new rules introductions (and thus the power creep, etc), I'd happily spend as much (or more) money on the campaign setting material as I do on hardcover rulebooks.
I don't know if most of the community shares that sentiment.

I personally do, but I'm pretty sure GM Lamplighter and I are in the minority. I think mechanics sell...I just don't think they're particularly good for the long-term health of a campaign (or game, for that matter). I suppose one could argue that what is good for sales is good for the game...it really depends on what you mean by "good for the game." :P

And that's why errata is so important to the survival of Pathfinder. It enables the development team rollback overpowered options, or clarify things that are initially broken. It's a direct way to combat the splatbook bloat that doomed 3.5.

*****

I'm sure the folks at Paizo know the game business better than us here, but I have heard it said that you have to sell rules to players to make a go of it. Presumably, because players outnumber GMs. It's too bad, because despite the skewed ratio, fewer players means smaller games, but fewer GMs means fewer games.

Silver Crusade ***** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MadScientistWorking wrote:


You had trouble with the not a bard, not a wizard, and really its just a sorcerer with the name scratched off classes? I'll give you the kineticist and medium but only one of those showed up on a consistent basis.
EDIT:
Not that I don't like those classes but jeez they really aren't that different from their core counterparts.

Yes, it took some time to read up on psychic spellcasting in general and mesmerist tricks in particular.

I utterly refuse to run anything with a Medium or Kineticist in it. I am just unwilling to spend the time

Shadow Lodge ***** RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8 aka WalterGM

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:

I'm sure the folks at Paizo know the game business better than us here, but I have heard it said that you have to sell rules to players to make a go of it. Presumably, because players outnumber GMs. It's too bad, because despite the skewed ratio, fewer players means smaller games, but fewer GMs means fewer games.

I think that players and GMs are the same consumers. New rules are awesome for both, and a headache for both. GMs get more tools to use to challenge players, and players get more options to use to solve challenges GMs create.

Also, every GM I know is also a player. We're the same folks, we just do different roles from time to time.

Shadow Lodge **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Paul Jackson wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:


You had trouble with the not a bard, not a wizard, and really its just a sorcerer with the name scratched off classes? I'll give you the kineticist and medium but only one of those showed up on a consistent basis.
EDIT:
Not that I don't like those classes but jeez they really aren't that different from their core counterparts.

Yes, it took some time to read up on psychic spellcasting in general and mesmerist tricks in particular.

I utterly refuse to run anything with a Medium or Kineticist in it. I am just unwilling to spend the time

I know exactly which scenario you are talking about, and I'll back you up on this -- figuring out how the mesmerist stare abilities worked from just the stat bloc and the just-released Occult Adventures was very challenging, especially given all the *other* convoluted spellcasters to prep in that one.

Mediums aren't bad if they have their spirits locked in, though(which they should).

Shadow Lodge ****

bugleyman wrote:


I personally do, but I'm pretty sure GM Lamplighter and I are in the minority. I think mechanics sell...I just don't think they're particularly good for the long-term health of a campaign (or game, for that matter). I suppose one could argue that what is good for sales is good for the game...it really depends on what you mean by "good for the game." :P

I do not. The lore tends to be rehashed in multiple places and very rarely if ever churns out anything that will affect my character once it's passed a glossary.

Shadow Lodge ****

Same here. I really don't care for much of the setting and lore, because I find it too defined and specific. I'd rather have less of it which then allows me, as both a DM and a Player to utilize my own creativity and interpretation of things, personalizing it all more and being challenged.

The more setting material we get, the less interest I have in Golarion, and it wouldn't really hurt my feelings at all if they put the flavor lines on hold for a year or two and just let the setting be.

As far as the crunch and rules creep, I think the main issue is the way that Paizo handled it early on. We really don't need a zillion classes, when many of them are based on a concept that could have been handled, in my opinion, better as Feat Chains for existing classes. This then leads to the need to fill all of those classes with Archetypes, unique Feats, Spells, and similar options to branch out, further stepping on other Classe's toes or upping the game overall.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Paul Jackson wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:


You had trouble with the not a bard, not a wizard, and really its just a sorcerer with the name scratched off classes? I'll give you the kineticist and medium but only one of those showed up on a consistent basis.
EDIT:
Not that I don't like those classes but jeez they really aren't that different from their core counterparts.

Yes, it took some time to read up on psychic spellcasting in general and mesmerist tricks in particular.

I utterly refuse to run anything with a Medium or Kineticist in it. I am just unwilling to spend the time

Huh. I didn't realize that PFS GM's can just decide to reject characters because they don't like particular classes. If I had spent money on materials that were listed as approved on the Additional Resources page and then wasn't allowed to use them, I think I would be unhappy.

Grand Lodge *

@Gisher Pretty sure he was referring to refusing to run scenarios with NPCs that have those classes.


Gisher,he said he won't run anything with those mechanics in them, not that he wouldn't run for players using them. A distinct and major difference.

Sczarni

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The fighter is doing things again, stirring trouble wherever it goes. How dare it be good at something. Please, please hit it with the bat again!

I love it
when the fighter gets hit
I tend to their wounds
but never before
I can't prevent it
and can only enjoy it

Raise the bat!
Fighter prepare!
Raise the bat!
Fighter despair!

It'll come down
on your crown friend
Every hope you ever had
crushed with wood
splintering your class into pieces
of trash

Raise the bat!
Fighter prepare!
Raise the bat!
Fighter despair!

Next on the list
is the monk
but they've trained
to take the hits
They have feats too
How dare they
So resilient

Raise the bat!
Fighter prepare!
Raise the bat!
Fighter despair!

And that will conclude today's poetry session.


Jayder22 wrote:
Gisher,he said he won't run anything with those mechanics in them, not that he wouldn't run for players using them. A distinct and major difference.
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
@Gisher Pretty sure he was referring to refusing to run scenarios with NPCs that have those classes.

I see. I'm not familiar with PFS jargon, and must have missed something.

*** Venture-Agent aka Link2000

DM Beckett wrote:

Same here. I really don't care for much of the setting and lore, because I find it too defined and specific. I'd rather have less of it which then allows me, as both a DM and a Player to utilize my own creativity and interpretation of things, personalizing it all more and being challenged.

The more setting material we get, the less interest I have in Golarion, and it wouldn't really hurt my feelings at all if they put the flavor lines on hold for a year or two and just let the setting be.

As far as the crunch and rules creep, I think the main issue is the way that Paizo handled it early on. We really don't need a zillion classes, when many of them are based on a concept that could have been handled, in my opinion, better as Feat Chains for existing classes. This then leads to the need to fill all of those classes with Archetypes, unique Feats, Spells, and similar options to branch out, further stepping on other Classe's toes or upping the game overall.

I so far enjoy the setting and lore that Paizo has published. I find it to be defined and specific enough to have a good starting point for adventures and vague enough to give the GM a level of freedom to decide on it's content.

For an example, I'm running a game where my players are in the Land of the Linnorm Kings. In that area alone, I have a Female King who has a living linnorm in her court. A spire of ice where it was supposedly made by a linnorm and the deeper one goes the more alien it gets. A tarn that is rumored to have a powerful creature protecting a treasure (a 'hero' went after that one with a legendary sword and never returned). That's a lot of things to go off of and is just from one book.

I would also like to point out that none of that is very specific to stop a GM from making something up. Maybe the Female King is a puppet to the linnorm. The spire of ice could have been alien or maybe the creature that made it just went crazy from loneliness. Mayhaps the tarn is a portal to some sort of paradise and no creature exists, but rather anyone who goes just feels no need to leave? The groups having a great time because there is enough that they know to keep them on edge, but enough blanks for me to fill to keep it interesting.

But, to each their own. What works for one, may not so for another. Just putting out a differing opinion.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Crayfish Hora wrote:

The fighter is doing things again, stirring trouble wherever it goes. How dare it be good at something. Please, please hit it with the bat again!

...

I fully agree with... wait... hit it with what?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nerf Bat wrote:
Crayfish Hora wrote:

The fighter is doing things again, stirring trouble wherever it goes. How dare it be good at something. Please, please hit it with the bat again!

...
I fully agree with... wait... hit it with what?

Sometimes, one must 'take a hit (or ten) for the team'.

Just want you to know, we're all counting on you!

Silver Crusade ***** Venture-Captain, Germany—Aschaffenburg-Würzburg

Paul Jackson wrote:
bugleyman wrote:


However, one thing I believe often gets lost in discussions of organized play as a marketing tools is that it also has to be fun...and not just for the players. One thing that made me largely give up on GMing PFS was the constant stream of (what I perceived to be shoehorned-in) new mechanics. Did it really make for a better experience at the table to have NPC XYZ be a kineticist instead of a sorcerer? I personally can't say for sure, but what I can say for sure is that the need to read and understand an entire new class was not fun for me! ;-)
When (not if) I eventually rage quit as GM (i've come VERY close several times already) this is likely to be the driving factor. They're making it too hard to GM. And, when you put in all the work, the power creep means that 1/2 the time the work you put in is TOTALLY wasted as the group just one shots the bad guy anyway.

I understand you feelings, after more than 200 tables I have also considered significantly reducing my public tables. Thus far I have resisted, but there are maybe half a dozen local options that tend to significantly reduces the challenge of most scenarios... and kind dampen my enthusiasm as GM.

Of course, some players learn and avoid certain options, or just don't play their char at 100% power all the time to try to ensure that the GMs is also having fun.

Frankly, it can be quite refreshing to play with new players who, don't see the need to maximize everything (and letting people GM often makes them "better" players).

Grand Lodge ****

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Nerf Bat wrote:
Crayfish Hora wrote:

The fighter is doing things again, stirring trouble wherever it goes. How dare it be good at something. Please, please hit it with the bat again!

...
I fully agree with... wait... hit it with what?

Sometimes, one must 'take a hit (or ten) for the team'.

Just want you to know, we're all counting on you!

Pulls out comically large rail gun, turns it on and lets it wind up to a nice dangerous purr.

Quaffs an extract of True strike.

"Now this won't hurt much." She says as she lines up the Timeworn Masterwork Railgun as she infuses it wth a alchemispcal mixture of Alchemist Fire/Slime Grenade and lines up her shot at the NB

Silver Crusade ***** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
Jayder22 wrote:
Gisher,he said he won't run anything with those mechanics in them, not that he wouldn't run for players using them. A distinct and major difference.
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
@Gisher Pretty sure he was referring to refusing to run scenarios with NPCs that have those classes.
I see. I'm not familiar with PFS jargon, and must have missed something.

Yes, I did indeed mean that I will not run scenarios that have these classes as NPCs. PCs can be whatever legal option they want to be

I could have been clearer in the way I expressed myself. Sorry about that.

Sczarni

Nerf Bat wrote:
Crayfish Hora wrote:

The fighter is doing things again, stirring trouble wherever it goes. How dare it be good at something. Please, please hit it with the bat again!

...
I fully agree with... wait... hit it with what?

As Joki-Loki would say, "Ohhhh youu!" You are my favorite.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
I guess my question to you would be this: When -- not if -- an unbalancing option is published, how would you prefer it be handled in PFS?

In my home games, the standing rule is that if a player can even find the original text for an item, they can have that version for double the price -- with Quickrunner Shirts at triple the price.

But that's it. Just... pay double, get to use the original text. Seems to have worked out OK. The items are still desirable and useful, but maaaayybe require a little more thought about their worth.

The Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier at 10,000 GP is still a decent choice, if you get all the original features. Nobody feels mad or ripped off at that point; it just becomes something to mull over and you only end up buying the things you really still want.

In PFS if they did that, it would feel much less painful than the current handling, because characters level up long before any errata is produced. In other words, by the time the errata hits, the PC will have acquired more gold, and be able to pay the price difference. Mostly. Usually. In this way, it slows the usage of overpowered items naturally. Newer players might hesitate at the price, while older players will probably be able to keep 90% of their stuff as-is, if they can pay the price difference.

Harold Ervin wrote:
Nerfing Tribal Scars invalidated the entire People of the North purchase as far as I'm concerned, and you've cost yourself sales... again.

Wait. Tribal Scars got nerfed too?!?! I can't keep up with this stuff. This is ridiculous.

But that's beside the point. My point would be: you're right, Harold Ervin. In 2013 & 2014 I bought maybe 40+ Paizo books. Big books, splatbooks, PDFs, hard covers. Probably over $1000 USD if I bothered to add it up. My last big purchase was Occult Adventures in 2015. Since then I've purchased only 2 of Paizo's paperback splatbooks in 2016, and a handful of PFS modules up through 2017.

Why did I spend $1000+ in 2013/2014, and then maybe just $35 in 2017? Because it's scary to purchase a product that is unreliable. Let me say that again to Paizo management: It's scary to buy your unreliable products.

****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would prefer that Paizo release less rules and setting books altogether, not just one or the other. I feel that from the get-go Pathfinder development has been primarily focused on getting books out the door quickly. There's two aspects to this: quality and quantity.

In terms of quality just look at the rough edges in the rules in the CRB for example. I've read some of the commentary about its development where there were areas they wanted to improve but couldn't without delaying its release. Every GM and player continues to be impacted by those decisions coming on a decade later and the whole product line suffers as well. The adventurer's armory debacle should have been a wake up call. In the years since there have been a number more books, some flagship hardcover books, that have had serious quality issues showing that these lessons aren't been taken to heart.

In terms of quantity there are quite simply too many books to even read. I remember seeing a quote from one of the main developers who said that even they don't read every Pathfinder book because there are just too many. No game publisher can provide a consistent product, consistent in lore as well as self-consistent rules, when no one publishing it can keep track of everything. The fact that multiple books have been published covering the exact same topics shows a lack of cohesive vision in game design where even setting lore has to be corrected.

My desires are selfish. I don't care how much money Paizo makes so long as they stay in business. While the ship seems to have sailed for Pathfinder, with Starfinder offering a chance to reset things I want them to use a more deliberate method of creating both rules and setting books, with a slower pace of setting and rules books releases. I also want what's broken fixed through errata, not publishing optional rules in later books that change fundamental aspects of the game. Especially considering that society play, the games public marketing, will never use those fixes, e.g. changes to the Pathfinder stealth rules.

All that said, I do really like Pathfinder the game system as well as the setting. The Inner Sea World Guide is a great book for example. I'm hopeful that Starfinder finds a better path forward.

Shadow Lodge ***** RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8 aka WalterGM

5 people marked this as a favorite.
aboyd wrote:

But that's beside the point. My point would be: you're right, Harold Ervin. In 2013 & 2014 I bought maybe 40+ Paizo books. Big books, splatbooks, PDFs, hard covers. Probably over $1000 USD if I bothered to add it up. My last big purchase was Occult Adventures in 2015. Since then I've purchased only 2 of Paizo's paperback splatbooks in 2016, and a handful of PFS modules up through 2017.

Why did I spend $1000+ in 2013/2014, and then maybe just $35 in 2017? Because it's scary to purchase a product that is unreliable. Let me say that again to Paizo management: It's scary to buy your unreliable products.

This is kind of a silly stance. Because if the product was unreliable, we wouldn't be getting any errata whatsoever. It would just be bad and no updates would be released.

Paizo is seeing errors made in the past and correcting them in future printings. Much like a patch made to software. They are offering this update for free if you have purchased the original product, as John mentioned this earlier.

Furthermore, all PFS participants are notified of these updates and changes to the base rules of Pathfinder via this section of the guide. So erratas and new content should never be a topic of surprise--it is a constant facet of the game.

Guide to Organized Play, Season 8, pg. 8 wrote:


PLAYTESTS AND ERRATA
The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is a living game, and whether in the form of a playtest that varies from its final incarnation, conversion from the 3.5 rules set to the Pathfinder RPG, or errata or FAQ for the core rules, sometimes game elements change over the course of a PC’s career. The following guidelines allow players to update or convert existing characters to use the most current rules.

Again, I am sorry that folks are taking these updates in a very negative light. I don't know how that perspective can be changed, and I suspect it'll be a hard road to travel, but I don't want to play a game that is out of date.

I don't want to play a version of PFS where everyone has a Jingasa, a stupid wayfinder that makes you immune to season 0-2 threats, and a myriad of early entry SLA nonsense. I'd rather play a version of PFS where those things come and go, and new shenanigans rise up to replace them. A living system that encourages continuous creative thought and interaction.

Why would I want to keep participating in PFS when everyone is the same cookie cutter character? Thank god we have updates, errata, and new character options. After 10 years of Pathfinder we need them.

I apologize if that's an unpopular opinion to express here, but it is one that allows me to accept nerfs in stride, and not get bent out of shape whenever one of my characters is hit by one.

Scarab Sages *****

My level 18 barbarian will be needing three new rage powers, two new magic items, and a new feat (poor Tribal Scars) when he comes off his two year AP cooldown, and I think it's hilarious, more than anything.

"I don't understand... the world has changed so much in my absence. Wait, why don't these boots work anymore?"

Dark Archive *****

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Rukk wrote:


"I don't understand... the world has changed so much in my absence. Wait, why don't these boots work anymore?"

"It has to do with cheap manufacturing standards on the Plane of Earth."

Sczarni *****

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I hear there were cruel working conditions there, too.

The elementals weren't allowed to eat, sleep, or even breathe!

Shadow Lodge ****

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Walter Sheppard wrote:

This is kind of a silly stance. Because if the product was unreliable, we wouldn't be getting any errata whatsoever. It would just be bad and no updates would be released.

Paizo is seeing errors made in the past and correcting them in future printings. Much like a patch made to software. They are offering this update for free if you have purchased the original product, as John mentioned this earlier.

Hold up. You are making it sound like, assuming they released multiple problematic products, that making corrections and fixing those issues is a privilege they give to us customers. Isn't it sort of their responsibility to release products that are not problematic, and then, if those cases that mistakes happen, then to try to fix those things asap?

Secondly, a great deal of what you are saying is incorrect. Many of these updates and errata are in fact not free. Many times the updates and errata are not for the books that these items originally come from, and instead they, especially recently have been being changed in other books, outright replacing the prior one in the official sense.

In those cases yes, the PDF is updated and changed, but this is generally a very poor way to do it for all those folks that have the physical book.

Walter Sheppard wrote:

Again, I am sorry that folks are taking these updates in a very negative light. I don't know how that perspective can be changed, and I suspect it'll be a hard road to travel, but I don't want to play a game that is out of date.

I don't want to play a version of PFS where everyone has a Jingasa, a stupid wayfinder that makes you immune to season 0-2 threats, and a myriad of early entry SLA nonsense. I'd rather play a version of PFS where those things come and go, and new shenanigans rise up to replace them. A living system that encourages continuous creative thought and interaction.

Why would I want to keep participating in PFS when everyone is the same cookie cutter character? Thank god we have updates, errata, and new character options. After 10 years of Pathfinder we need them.

I apologize if that's an unpopular opinion to express here, but it is one that allows me to accept nerfs in stride, and not get bent out of shape whenever one of my characters is hit by one.

I don't think that people are taking these things in a negative light so much as that to most people they are just really negative changes to the game.

The change to the Jingasa was needed, as the item was simply far, far to cheap for what it did. However, even as someone that disliked the item, the only change that was actually needed was to change the cost. NOT TO MAKE THE ITEM OUTRIGHT USELESS.

To most people, the Ioun Stone was also not an issue. It was priced pretty right for what it did, and despite some claims like "makes you immune to season 0-2 threats", it actually didn't even come up that often. WHAT WE DID NOT NEED WAS FOR IT TO BE MADE OUTRIGHT USELESS, especially as we already have plenty of very cheap ways to get the spell in a can effect.

These are negative changes to the game. And if your real issue is not wanting to play in games that "everyone is the same cookie cutter character", well changes like this to any item that is interesting, helpful, and possibly more desirable to the "Big Six" are exactly the sorts of things you should be against.

I understand that you have a different opinion than I do, and that's perfectly fine. I hope you don't read the tone of this post as "screaming" at you or anyone, as that's not my intent. I just fundamentally disagree, and to be honest, if this trend continues, I honestly feel it will start to drive a lot of people away from PFS and Paizo. It really seems that the main focus for the last few months is all about Starfinder, but I also don't think they realize that there are a lot of folks who are not interested in that setting, and I think there is a real possibility that Paizo may fall into the exact same pit that WotC did when 4E came out, and a significant amount off folks simply do not follow. I could be wrong, as I'm just basing this on my own local and community experiences.

Pathfinder, as a whole, has lost a great deal of the thing that made it important and desirable overall back in the early days. I don't mean that in the sense that PF was against 4E, but rather that it presented a valid way to continue to play a version of D&D that a rather large population of the overall fanbase at the time felt that 4E did not. It is no longer the "not 4E" edition that continued the prior system that those fans loved. 4E is over now, and that need is no longer really missing.

There has also been a move to try to combine the rules with the setting, which, to me seems very evidently to be driving a wedge between the fan base. With all of these things going on, so much reprinted material that changes things from prior existing material, with a larger degree of those changes being either "nerfs" or making those items pointless to the characters that had wanted the original to begin with, we can reasonably say that these changes are very controversial at the minimum.

Despite how one feels about these various items, though, I think just about everyone can agree that reprinting them in future books IS NOT THE WAY TO HANDLE IT. This is not like a software patch, but rather like an in-game purchase. It takes up space in products that people are expecting to be filled with new material, not (what very much comes off as) a few individuals personal preferences or house rules being slipped into canon or official status.

Many of these individual items that we are talking about, and that keep coming up on the forums are items that people basically have to buy a new product for in order to either continue to use an item, (especially in PFS, but also in many home games where the DM goes by the book for things like this) or to avoid massive confusion where different people have access to different things with the same name and similar function.

** Venture-Agent aka Chess Pwn

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Errata that fixed things would be fine, put correct numbers, changer wording to be clearer. If they are going to drastically alter something to fix it do it as soon as possible. They shouldn't be waiting many years, decide they changed their mind in how they want something to work, and then go and change things to match their new view.

People are upset cause it feels like a bait and switch, buy a book for x,and then have x be changed in a different book.

And to make it like a computer, patches don't drastically alter the functionality, they are small changes. A patch shouldn't change my Word to Notepad

**

DM Beckett wrote:


In those cases yes, the PDF is updated and changed, but this is generally a very poor way to do it for all those folks that have the physical book.

We're playing a game based off a game that actively rewrote the rules far more drastically than anything Paizo has ever done. The whole mentality that your books will remain relevant should never be a consideration. Hell even in the computer sector its not uncommon to see entire programs and mechanics completely rewritten.

Silver Crusade *

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MadScientistWorking wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:


In those cases yes, the PDF is updated and changed, but this is generally a very poor way to do it for all those folks that have the physical book.

We're playing a game based off a game that actively rewrote the rules far more drastically than anything Paizo has ever done. The whole mentality that your books will remain relevant should never be a consideration. Hell even in the computer sector its not uncommon to see entire programs and mechanics completely rewritten.

Having worked in the IT sector for a while (albeit some years back now), I can assure you that few things ticked off customers and users more than complete rewrites of products. Didn't matter how much the supplier claimed improvements, users were always unhappy to lose what they knew and liked (and had paid for). Sometimes they got to know and like the "upgrade", and sometimes they didn't. And when they didn't they'd be sure to find an alternative supplier.

Shadow Lodge ****

I am still irked over the loss of the amazing "make a graph by selecting the squares" tool in excel. Why they did away with that i have no idea.


supervillan wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:


In those cases yes, the PDF is updated and changed, but this is generally a very poor way to do it for all those folks that have the physical book.

We're playing a game based off a game that actively rewrote the rules far more drastically than anything Paizo has ever done. The whole mentality that your books will remain relevant should never be a consideration. Hell even in the computer sector its not uncommon to see entire programs and mechanics completely rewritten.
Having worked in the IT sector for a while (albeit some years back now), I can assure you that few things ticked off customers and users more than complete rewrites of products. Didn't matter how much the supplier claimed improvements, users were always unhappy to lose what they knew and liked (and had paid for). Sometimes they got to know and like the "upgrade", and sometimes they didn't. And when they didn't they'd be sure to find an alternative supplier.

Every change breaks somebody's workflow

Shadow Lodge ***** RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8 aka WalterGM

@ DM Beckett
If there are errors with printed text, the book gets errata. If an entire rule suite (such as a feat, magic item, archetype, etc) needs revision, we get it again in a newer book. In the context of PFS, both updates are provided free-even for those with the physical book. As John stated, if you have an original source, you can use it and the errata or updated text provided online (via the PRD) in lieu of the newer source. So in both contexts it is free.

I appreciate that people don't like these changes. However, they are changes to the BASE GAME OF PATHFINDER. These aren't PFS specific changes. These are changes that the developers of Pathfinder the RPG made based off of their own reasoning. If you want to discuss why those changes took place, or make a case for those changes to be reverted, that discussion should take place on the general Pathfinder RPG forums. Not these boards. Our PFS overlords have no power to enact the kind of change being rallied for here.

I also disagree that reprinting isn't the way to handle some updates. A lot of these changes were major. Entire items, feats, and abilities were rewritten. I don't want to have to reference errata for each one of these things. I'd rather there be a comprehensive location that contains them all. Like a book. Which is exactly what we got. Except the book also contains a bunch of other great lore and new crunch as well, as a hardback should. And again, in the context of PFS, as John stated, YOU DON'T NEED TO BUY TWO SOURCES TO USE ANY OF THESE THINGS. Your original source works just fine.

So as I see it the argument is now about not liking:
a) the kinds of changes being made
b) the way these changes are being rolled out
c) the frequency of changes.

All of which are viable avenues of concern, but none of which the PFS oversight folks have any control over. Your complains are better directed at the Pathfinder RPG development team, on a different section of the forum.

Once the PFS team tells us how these updates to the Pathfinder RPG are going to effect us, then there's more to argue about. However, I'll be the first to link that section of the Guide once more, that reminds people that the rules of this game change, and characters are expected to follow the most current version of those rules.

Grand Lodge *

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually, often when it's stealth errata'd by being printed in a new books you can't use it unless you've bought that source simply due to not having the new text. Since the updated version isn't added to the PRD for a long time you quite literally have no way of accessing that content outside of 3rd party sources.

You can't exactly use the new version of an archetype/feat/magic item if you don't have an official way to read the new text.

Shadow Lodge ***** RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8 aka WalterGM

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Compton wrote:

I gather there's some confusion and concern about legal versions of resources.

Should the Additional Resources for Adventurer's Guide require using the more recent version of a legal character option, having any version of that resource will be sufficient for Additional Resources purposes. You don't need to buy a new book to use an option you already had.

Grand Lodge *

4 people marked this as a favorite.

You're missing the point. Unless you have access to the rules text via the new book how will you use the new version of it?

God knows the PRD won't update anytime soon and if it's in a non-core line then it's not even an option.

Shadow Lodge ****

As a practical matter the stuff they eratta not kept in its original form is not kept it's sold back, making it rather a moot point.

The internet knows these things. The information will be out there on geek net rather quickly (just follow the fireball)

**

The Campaign Clarifications errata document will have the updated wording. It's not errata, it's not Stealth errata, it's Campaign Clarifications. Big difference, right?

Grand Lodge *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@BNW I was thinking more for archetype changes like Lore Warden where it would not be a moot point as its not something you can sell back.

@technarken Does the CC Document include the wording of the new versions of options that were reprinted? That would certainly fix the issue if so, but I haven't seen that be the case.

**

Jurassic Pratt wrote:


@technarken Does the CC Document include the wording of the new versions of options that were reprinted? That would certainly fix the issue if so, but I haven't seen that be the case.

When they nerfed Fencing Grace last year they added the Ultimate Intrigue text to the CC document. I'm assuming that's what they'll do with all the reprint items. We might even be able to use the CC document as a source what with how much space some item reprints will have to be given.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

*pulps and prints out a grove of trees*

"What's this?"

"Well, since all the Clarifications are here, this is my source material."

Scarab Sages ****

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


*pulps and prints out a grove of trees*

"What's this?"

"Well, since all the Clarifications are here, this is my source material."

*tap tap taps sustainably harvested pointy stick*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Walter Sheppard wrote:
aboyd wrote:
It's scary to buy your unreliable products.
This is kind of a silly stance.

Luckily, whether a person's stance has your seal of approval or not, we still get to have our stances anyway. So if Paizo's issues are not fixed, that's OK, I'll put my money toward other games. No worries. So really, it's just down to whether Paizo wants the money from the customers they used to have, and if so, are they willing to address those concerns in order to get that money back.

**

aboyd wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:
aboyd wrote:
It's scary to buy your unreliable products.
This is kind of a silly stance.

Luckily, whether a person's stance has your seal of approval or not, we still get to have our stances anyway. So if Paizo's issues are not fixed, that's OK, I'll put my money toward other games. No worries. So really, it's just down to whether Paizo wants the money from the customers they used to have, and if so, are they willing to address those concerns in order to get that money back.

No it really is a silly stance because well you agreed with the guy who for most people admitted to a really horrible spending habit.

Scarab Sages *****

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lily Moore wrote:
aboyd wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:
aboyd wrote:
It's scary to buy your unreliable products.
This is kind of a silly stance.

Luckily, whether a person's stance has your seal of approval or not, we still get to have our stances anyway. So if Paizo's issues are not fixed, that's OK, I'll put my money toward other games. No worries. So really, it's just down to whether Paizo wants the money from the customers they used to have, and if so, are they willing to address those concerns in order to get that money back.

No it really is a silly stance because well you agreed with the guy who for most people admitted to a really horrible spending habit.

I'm not so sure that chastising people for a silly spending habit or their opinions on whether Paizo product is worth purchasing is really appropriate or germane to this conversation.


Walter Sheppard wrote:
This is kind of a silly stance. Because if the product was unreliable, we wouldn't be getting any errata whatsoever.

So if something has problems that need to be fixed, that proves it's reliable, and any other opinion is silly?

551 to 600 of 708 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society® / Roleplaying Guild / General Discussion / Please no more nerfs All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.